G.R. No. 182498; February 16, 2010
GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR., Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP); Police Chief Superintendent RAUL CASTAÑEDA, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG); Police Senior Superintendent LEONARDO A. ESPINA, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER); and GEN. JOEL R. GOLTIAO, Regional Director of ARMM, PNP, Petitioners, vs. MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS, herein represented by ATTY. FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR., Attorney-in-Fact, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves a Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners (high-ranking PNP officials) addressing the Supreme Court’s Decision dated December 3, 2009. That Decision affirmed the Court of Appeals’ grant of a Writ of Amparo, confirming the enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced N. Tagitis. The Supreme Court’s finding was based, in part, on information from Col. Julasirim Ahadin Kasim, who informed the respondent, Mary Jean Tagitis, that her husband had been under surveillance since January 2007 because an informant notified authorities he was a liaison for the Jema’ah Islamiah (JI), and that he was “in good hands” and under custodial investigation. The Court considered this “Kasim evidence” together with the government’s consistent denials of complicity, the dismissive approach of police to the disappearance report, and haphazard investigations as indicative of government complicity for purposes of the Writ of Amparo. The Court introduced a new evidentiary standard for such cases, allowing hearsay evidence if relevant and consistent with other admissible evidence. The December 3, 2009 Decision held the government, through the PNP and PNP-CIDG, and specifically their Chiefs and Col. Kasim, accountable for the enforced disappearance. It ordered Col. Kasim impleaded to disclose information.

ISSUE

The primary issues in the Motion for Reconsideration are: (1) Whether there was sufficient evidence to conclude government complicity in Tagitis’s disappearance based on the “Kasim evidence” and surrounding circumstances; and (2) Whether the directive to implead Col. Kasim has been rendered moot by his alleged death.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
1. On the issue of Col. Kasim’s impleadment: The Court held that the directive to implead Col. Kasim has been rendered moot and academic by his death, as proven by the petitioners’ submission of a news article and a PNP General Order posthumously retiring him. However, his death does not erase the continuing obligations of the PNP and CIDG.
2. On the sufficiency of evidence: The Court found no merit in the petitioners’ claim. It reiterated that its conclusion of government complicity was not based solely on the “Kasim evidence” but on the totality of evidence, including the government’s consistent denials, the dismissive police approach, and the haphazard investigations. The Court affirmed its application of a flexible evidentiary standard appropriate for enforced disappearance cases under the Writ of Amparo, where hearsay evidence that is relevant and consistent with other evidence can be considered. The obligations of the PNP (through its incumbent Chief) and the PNP-CIDG (through its incumbent Chief) for disclosure and investigation using extraordinary diligence remain subsisting and continuing until the disappearance is fully addressed.